Debates in the age of pick-and-pay politics

If a consortium collapsed in the forest, would anybody care? Unless you’re running a major TV network, or grew up watching one, your answer is probably a big fat ‘no’.

That reality is at the root of the Conservatives’ decision to dump the traditional debate consortium in favour of newer digital forums. The fact that the consortium has now announced a partnership with Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Vine and YouTube only reinforces the fact that eyeballs are migrating to smaller and smaller screens. Whether this partnership will change the Conservatives’ mind about participating remains to be seen; the nature of the consortium “big box” debate, skimming a host of subjects in two hours, defies the nature of the modern, targeted viewing market. Gone is the five-channel universe: In a world of unlimited choice on TV and online, it’s all about the ‘long tail’, whether you’re selling pop or politicians.

Leading the charge are the voters of tomorrow: millenials. According to Deloitte’s Digital Democracy Survey, viewers aged 14-24 consume 56 per cent of their TV and film content on a computer, smartphone, tablet or gaming device. Those aged 24-30 consume 47 per cent of their film and TV content through mobile devices, streaming and online. Contrast that with the over-30 crowd, who still watch over 80 per cent of their film and TV programming on television.

Viewing online means viewing what you want, when you want. Hence the advent of pick-and-pay politics and downloadable debates. These contests will be tailored to voter preferences, but will also let voters shape the campaign. Viewers who care about Quebec will tune in to TVA. Those who worry about the economy will go to the Globe and Mail. Those who like reading Paul Wells (and who doesn’t?) will choose Maclean’s. Setting the agenda is a two-way street, and there is no way to predict what will emerge as the ballot box question when there are so many questions that matter.

There will now be five debates instead of two. It’s a paradox — the more debates you have, the less important each one becomes.

It’s true that the major networks are free to pick up these debates for broadcast, as Conservative party spokesperson Kory Teneycke has been reminding us ad nauseam. But they have little interest in doing so, because they’ll be competing with non-political programming on other major channels. Under the old model, viewers — and advertisers — had nowhere else to go: Every over-the-air network featured the same debate at the same time. Given the choice between Two Broke Girls and four dull politicians, however, viewers will be able to vote with their remote — and it likely won’t be up for debate.

There will now be five debates instead of two. It’s a paradox — the more debates you have, the less important each one becomes. Case in point: In last year’s Toronto mayoral election, voters suffered through 22 debates, 14 of which took place in the final two months of the campaign. There were some memorable moments, but for the average voter, it was easier to access those on Twitter than sit through hours of repetitive arguments.

Another paradox is that forsaking the consortium amounts to courting younger voters — most of whom don’t actually vote. Only 38.8 per cent of eligible voters aged 18-24 exercised their franchise in 2011, as did 45.1 per cent of those aged 25-34. In contrast, 54.5 per cent of those aged 35-44 cast a ballot, as did 64.5 per cent of eligible voters aged 45-54, 71.5 per cent of those 55-64, and 75.1 per cent of those aged 65-74. Considering that the Tories tailored their budget-slash-election-platform entirely to families and near-retirees, it might seem odd to exclude those voters from the conversation by dumping the traditional consortium debate.

But as Prime Minister Stephen Harper often does, the Conservatives are looking ten years down the line. When those millenials start having kids, getting mortgages and heading to the ballot box, the Tories want them to be familiar with their message. That means finding the right medium to deliver it — and that medium isn’t traditional TV.

Rather than fret about the future of political debates, the consortium should worry about their own future, and that of the television industry itself. In a decade, will Canadians still subscribe to cable? Watch the eleven o’clock news? Fund a national broadcaster?

Those are the real questions TV networks need to address. The debates are just the canary in the coalmine.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

First, it’s payback to the big 3 for balking at his move earlier this year to steal media content for use in attack ads.

Second, it’s payback for poor little disenfranchised Kory, erstwhile head of the Sun News network, whose chip on one shoulder is consortium-sized.

Third, it’s an attempt to control the setting and as much about the debate as possible.

Fourth, it’s to disadvantage Trudeau – or so Harper thinks.

Fifth, it’s to disadvantage Trudeau, partially by advantaging Mulcair, and lead to a vote split “on the left”. Or so Harper thinks.

Sixth, it’s to deprive the media he dislikes of $ and prestige, and to confer same to patently right-winged media organizations.

Seventh, it’s to give a nod in particular to right-winged Quebeckers.

Eighth, the timing of the proposed Maclean’s debate in August means they can use that material – at bargain basement negotiated prices, no doubt – and a lot of pre-writ money, to advertise like mad before the election is actually called.

Ninth, Harper, who can tend to show signs of discomfort and nervousness in group settings and when being asked questions, thinks he can contain those deficiencies by stage-managing his “appearances” before select Canadian audiences. Most likely, moderation and questions will be minimized in favour of “speechifying”.

Tenth, he hopes all of the above will provide sharply contrasted media imagery, memorable, even at a subliminal level, images and sounds that portray him as the capable patrician who has every family’s best interests at heart and a gaggle of argumentative, angry, “others”, impotently volleying barbs at an absent opponent and cancelling each other out in the process. Harpy wants to be seen as transcending it all.

To limit the number of viewers of course. You’ve covered the format: to turn it into a glorified press conference, or speechifying as you put it. An increased number of debates actually marginalizes the debates beyond a certain number. That’s a small part of it. Also to get right wing moderators and right wing studio audiences for these boutique debates on right of center venues. To get them super early to limit viewership even more and have time to run unlimited attack ads from debate clips, as you pointed out. They’ve got the bucks to do that.

I think you’re right on. For all of their strategy to get every single advantage for themselves, and to disadvantage the others, a surprising amount of it is just childish juvenile hatred of the mainstream media and anger over the loss of their baby (Sun News Network).

“But as Prime Minister Stephen Harper often does, the Conservatives are looking ten years down the line.”

That’s the Tasha joke of the century….had Harper looked ahead and got serious about climate change Alberta might not be in the dumps. Had Harper looked ahead Canada might have a presence in the Arctic. Had Harper looked ahead, he would have cleaned his house and not have to watch most of his appointed anointed crawl through the courts in shame. Had Harper looked ahead instead of looking in fear, he wouldn’t have ended up hiding in a closet…I think that’s enough for now.

That’s only if Harper actually wanted to govern this country. The Harper party cheated in the 2006 elections to gain power. Now that he has successfully cheated in subsequent elections and gotten away with it he is in a state of omnipotence. Harper looking ahead sees only more things he can crush and destroy. He’s crazy.

Duck and hide Harper, our Prime Minister has been in Question Period 35% of the time, he should be there performing his duties answering to the opposition. On the other hand Tom Mulcair has been in Question Period doing his job as the Opposition Leader hoping to get some real answers from an empty chair that is suppose to be occupied by Mr. Harper. Mulcair says he will debate anyone, anywhere, anytime that”s the kind of leader I want leading the country not some manipulating duck and hide Prime Minister who cannot defend his policies of the last 9 years.

Mulcair is there because he has nothing to do but rant and rave about all of the perceived injustices being done to the country. On the other hand the PM has many responsibilities. If you think it is a good to have a PM answering in 45 seconds a loaded question which is not really a question well then good on you.

Do you really call a mini speech which is probably a gotcha type question and a response lasting 45 seconds to being held accountable. If the media wanted to ask serious questions about serious issues I am sure that Harper would have press conferences. However, we all know the media types are not interested in taking the time to understand policy. Its all about the gotcha or silly questions that don’t matter to anybody. Its all about being as simple as you can get it so that they can have a column based on gossip or anonymous sources to write.
If you really want question period to improve force the opposition to ask a straightforward question in the space of say a minute and allow the PM to answer in the space of 1 1/2 minutes. Maybe, just maybe we could get some answers that mean something. Mulcair did it with the senate scandal and did an effective job.

You seem to be contradicting yourself – you are suggesting QP is not effective but then you note Mulcair’s questioning of the PM in QP as a good example of accountability (which I agree is a good example)

The stupid pills seem to have affected everyone. Tasha:” Who doesn’t like Paul Wells?”
More: Bloomberg will be a debate organizer. An American company will be biasing a Canadian Federal election? The Munk Debates: A mining hog with a fedora and John Baird on his board will be biasing a Federal election? Wow. Michael Harris has done enough. About time some Canadian journalists stepped up and became Canadian. You couldn’t write this stuff, and if by some chance you did, you’d be laughed, then certified like Mr. Harper as a nut with wings.

Somebody is truly reaching for an explanation for this dictatorial action.

The great thing about sycophants and ideologue supporters is that the principle character can do whatever they want, and the followers will make the excuse/fill in the void of information with some method of reasoning in order make it “rational”, even though there is no rationality behind it.

There are so many methods being used to prevent voting, past electoral fraud being absolved, OPP investigating RCMP, RCMP investigating OPP, the gov’t in about 15 police investigations, election laws changed to give the Cons an advantage, Bill C-51 may be illegal but we’ll never know until someone is charged. that I feel as if the country is in a serious ‘constitutional crisis’. I believe SH is going to have to step down before the election.

That would take too much time. Consider – Conservatives have little ammunition to defend themselves anymore, they’ve spent it all and Harper is now an alabatross around the neck of the party. The disconnect cannot be spun. He’s good to go.

And I see the Harper party, and it is the Harper party, as an albatross around Canada’s neck. He goes, there will be nothing but a deflating balloon releasing some of the most deadly greenhouse gas ever registered to date.

I d love to believe that you are right but the Canadian public has been jaw droppingly uninterested for the past 9 years so I no longer have confidence. But if you have the right take, Ill be dancing in the lane!

While that is an interesting article I still don’t see what that has to do with Harper having to step down? I’d love to see the guy lose everything he thinks he has gained since cheating to overtake the Canadian government but this isn’t an explanation nor a guarantee he will step down. What do you know that I don’t?

Stephen Harper tax polices kill Canadians. He should step down. Since about 600 AD Christians like Stehen Harper have relied on Death to push their sick religion. Science has finally caught on to how and why psychopaths prey on Christians while they pray. It’s time to stop the slaughter of innocents. It’s time to stop Stephen Harper.

I’m someone that has been political since the age of 16. That’s a number of decades ago. I have voted for candidates that ran for different parties and over the years have always paid attention to what is taking place around me and how that will effect my life, my future. Anyone that has been doing that as their civic duty would never have to watch a debate before an election. They would know from experience who represents their values and who will take your vote and represent those values in the HOC or someone who will abuse the power you lend them by handing it over to some unscrupulous PM acting like a dictator or to a lobbyist you never voted for.

“It’s true that the major networks are free to pick up these debates for broadcast, as Conservative party spokesperson Kory Teneycke has been reminding us ad nauseam.”

You’d think that Tasha could find someone else to quote other than the person who apparently ran SNN into the ground. ;)

“But as Prime Minister Stephen Harper often does, the Conservatives are looking ten years down the line.”

Gosh, if Steve can do that, how come he did not see the collapse in oil price this year and also that other big financial collapse in 2008-09 where he had already spent the cupboard bare before the economy went south?

The only think I see Harper looking ahead at is based on what he looks behind at. He has gotten away with cheating in our elections more than once. He is all powerful. Give that to a crazy person and his view down the road is filled with more things to destroy that will fill his sense of being all powerful. If Canadians are at all concerned about their country – they need to take this guy and put him away.

More utter nonsense from the closet con.
Come on out Tash, you don’t hide it very well anyway.

You of all prognosticators must know that the primary reason harper wants to avoid national debates is Elizabeth May.
harper hates her more than he dislikes himself or even Trudeau the younger and she can return the bile in spades and that means Trouble for the con harper in a tete a tete.

Either way he loses and if you don’t jump off that shaky bandwagon soon you too will be left on the curb with him

Taking a “pick and play” approach is not only trying to manipulate the electorate but is bound to result in vote suppression as it will take too much work for the average voter to move from one boutique debate to another and then try to piece it all together.

Oh Tasha so many inconvenient truths again omitted from your CPC posting. If the sour puss Kory T is such a media genius, why did the Cons give the unemployed dude the keys, after Sun was canned? Lots of sour grapes you avoid. You can follow him over the cliff if you so wish. Attempting to dictate the media air is in full character with the regime. They, as always, want deflated balls and you look the other way as their faithful cheat cheerleader. Your voice is being muted by boosting Kory…your choice!

Tasha please face facts… Kory can’t twist the benefits of using deflated debate balls. He is not the media guru you quote and he’s even getting stumped by his garbled twang. You seem equally stumped and want to support this charade of the Harper vipers calling the shots yet again, devise all the rules and call the questions, dictate the moderator. You know rig the whole thing. You know the game Tasha: hide behind the charade of reporting when the real agenda is pushing the Reform/CPC/evangelicals/Tea Party agenda. Will there be throngs of dumb-faced paid supporters cheering on cue. It’s getting pretty thin Tasha, you heralding the harbinger of the dino Sun and hiding Kory as the latest media bully carrying Steve’s baggage. You are a died in wool CPC, that’s fine, just say it to all the readers and viewers like Tim Powers. Don’t be ashamed that you support bullies and anti democracy advocates. Tell us you shun environmentalists, first nations, liberals, enlightened activists, scientists, poets and other Harper enemies. Then your voice will at least be honest and forthright.

It’s bad enough that Bubble Boy sticks his fingers in his ears when questions like “what about climate change?” or “why did John Baird leave so fast?” come up. But now that he’s up against two better voices and one better haircut, he wants to stick his fingers in MY ears, and that’s just gross…